• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questions about Hinduism! Let's Discuss!

Why Nirguna Brahman needs to take FORM or A Saguna Rupa to CREATE? or is it just MAYA or illusion that makes us think that way??

In Rig Veda's Nasadiya Sukta, the creation hymn, who is it that creates? Brahman or Brahma/Prajapati etc??

Please provide answers to these. Will ask more questions.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I don't think there are definite answers to these questions, although there are several beliefs. I, personally, don't bother myself with thinking about creation; I don't think any mythology has it literally. The creation myths are not literal history; they're poetry.

What hymn are you talking about? Could you direct us to the book and hymn number?
 
I neither need a specific answer nor I have asked a specific question. I am simply asking DOES that impersonal GOD that is single undivisible and infinite supreme entity who is one and without a second, formless Brahman require or need to be in a form to start the creation of the material world? This is a simple question and Many hindus might say YES. I am just asking WHY? Why GOD needs to be in a form to create? Why only Saguna Brahman can create?
 
Last edited:

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Does God need to have form to create form? Maybe. It would make sense to me that since everything is an extension of the Lord that the manifest comes from the manifest.
But does God need to have form to do anything? Who knows? Perhaps form is an eternal aspect of God and that personal manifestation represents something connected with creation.

The real answer is that I do not know if God -needs- to have form but only that my understanding is that he does have form during the creation story. From Vishnu is born Bramha who then manifests the material universe. One important note to add is that when compiling the Srimad Bhagavatam, Vyasadeva points out that aspects of the creation story should not be taken literally.
 
Does God need to have form to create form? Maybe. It would make sense to me that since everything is an extension of the Lord that the manifest comes from the manifest.
But does God need to have form to do anything? Who knows? Perhaps form is an eternal aspect of God and that personal manifestation represents something connected with creation.

First of all, thanks for replying.

you said manifest came from the manifest. Where did the original manifest came from?So, by your view there is no unmanifested or impersonal GOD in the beginning?

But Gita talks about the unmanifested form of lord Krishna. Bhagvattam talks about BrahmaJyoti?


The real answer is that I do not know if God -needs- to have form but only that my understanding is that he does have form during the creation story. From Vishnu is born Bramha who then manifests the material universe. One important note to add is that when compiling the Srimad Bhagavatam, Vyasadeva points out that aspects of the creation story should not be taken literally.

I would like to know where did Veda Vyasa ji said so.

Yes, Vishnu Purana, Bhagvattam talks about the original creator in the personal form of Vishnu. Similarly other puranas have their specific Saguna or personal forms like Shiva, Devi, Ganesha, Krishna etc. In Shiva Purana, it talks about about Nirguna or impersonal form of Shiva's Jyoti which was infinite and had no beginning nor end. From this jyoti came personal form of Vishnu and Brahma and started creation and sustainence.

Questions remain that WHY impersonal or unmanifested GOD in the process of Creation, need to be manifested in different forms? DOES VEDIC Literature correlate with this philosophy? Could it be true that over time due to material contamination people made up these Saguna forms to make it easy to conceive GOD? Why can't impersonal GOD itself directly carry out creation, maintenance and destruction?
 
I don't think there are definite answers to these questions, although there are several beliefs. I, personally, don't bother myself with thinking about creation; I don't think any mythology has it literally. The creation myths are not literal history; they're poetry.

What hymn are you talking about? Could you direct us to the book and hymn number?

Nasadiya Sukta is in the 10th Mandala of Rig Veda, 129th hymn and verses 1-7.

Neither Being nor non-Being existed then (in the beginning);
There was no sky, nor heaven, which is beyond.
What was the covering?
And where and in whose care did the cosmic waters and the bottomless deep then exist?[1]


There was no death, hence neither was anything immortal;
There was no distinction between night and day.
By its inherent force the One breathed windless;
Nothing other than that existed. [2]

In the beginning there was darkness,
intensified darkness, indistinguishable darkness.
All this visible world was reduced to its primordial state.
This primordial world which was enveloped by the all pervading power of that One, came to be, born from the force of His great heat.[3]

Desire entered the One in the beginning,
It was the earliest seed, the product of thought.
Those (Sages) who can see beyond by putting their mind and heart together
Found the binding link of the existent in the non existent.
The non-existent existing in the existent[4]

Their ray extended light across the darkness;
But was the One below or was it above?
Creative force and fertile power was there;
Below was energy and will, above. [5]

Who knows for certain? Who shall declare it here?
When was it born and when came the creation?
The divine powers (Devas) were born
much later after Creation came into being
Who then knows whence it came about?[6]

None knows when creation has arisen;
Whether He made it or did not make it,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
Only He knows, or maybe even He knows not! [7]
 
The above creation account is similar to the big-bang theory, with some significant differences. It posits that in the beginning there was nothing, it was a state which was beyond existence and non-existence, there was absolute darkness, indistinguishable darkness and matter was in its primordial state. Then out of a great heat, the universe came into being and spread out in all directions, producing the seeds that later give rise to the whole universe and everything within it.

This sounds very much like a poetic description of the big-bang. The difference is that it also describes that which was prior to it, it describes that as that ONE, which is a dynamic being that is self-caused and and self-existent. The big-bang takes place when a will comes upon that being, giving rise to cosmic mind. This is significant because in Hindu philosophy of mind, desire is what causes mind and reality to manifest, thus causing duality and entrapping the soul in causality. Hence liberation from duality and causality(Samsara) by becoming desireless is the ultimate aim of Hinduism.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
First of all, thanks for replying.

you said manifest came from the manifest. Where did the original manifest came from?So, by your view there is no unmanifested or impersonal GOD in the beginning?

But Gita talks about the unmanifested form of lord Krishna. Bhagvattam talks about BrahmaJyoti?

Actually I do not mean that there is no unmanifest. I believe that God is both manifest and unmanifest. I do not think that the manifest comes from the unmanifest; they exist simultaneously and eternally.


I would like to know where did Veda Vyasa ji said so.

It is in the first canto I think, during the description of Bramha being born of Vishnu's naval. Vyasa comments that the reader must understand that the description given is not the exact reality as the reality is far beyond what the reader could possibly understand. In other words: don't take it literally. I apologise for not providing the exact location but I cannot recall at the moment and do not have the scripture with me now.

Yes, Vishnu Purana, Bhagvattam talks about the original creator in the personal form of Vishnu. Similarly other puranas have their specific Saguna or personal forms like Shiva, Devi, Ganesha, Krishna etc. In Shiva Purana, it talks about about Nirguna or impersonal form of Shiva's Jyoti which was infinite and had no beginning nor end. From this jyoti came personal form of Vishnu and Brahma and started creation and sustainence.

Questions remain that WHY impersonal or unmanifested GOD in the process of Creation, need to be manifested in different forms? DOES VEDIC Literature correlate with this philosophy? Could it be true that over time due to material contamination people made up these Saguna forms to make it easy to conceive GOD? Why can't impersonal GOD itself directly carry out creation, maintenance and destruction?Does 'need' even come into question? If God is both eternally personal and impersonal then perhaps it is only that the manifest creation inevitably comes from that form aspect of God. That makes sense to me. You seem to come from the perspective that the form comes from the impersonal aspect and this why you have the question. But if God is also eternally manifest (as well as unmanifest) then there is no question of 'need' as far as I can see.

Could scripture have changed over time to add the personal feature? Well anything is possible but then how can we trust anything in the scripture at all? If it is possible to add a personal feature then it is also possible to add an impersonal feature. We can't know if anything has been tampered with.

From a completely hypothetical perspective one could try to argue that the impersonal feature is capable of doing everything alone but what use is arguing such a thing when we have no real understanding of God's nature? How can we argue either way without understanding how it all works?

I hope that this makes sense.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Nasadiya Sukta is in the 10th Mandala of Rig Veda, 129th hymn and verses 1-7.

Neither Being nor non-Being existed then (in the beginning);
There was no sky, nor heaven, which is beyond.
What was the covering?
And where and in whose care did the cosmic waters and the bottomless deep then exist?[1]


There was no death, hence neither was anything immortal;
There was no distinction between night and day.
By its inherent force the One breathed windless;
Nothing other than that existed. [2]

In the beginning there was darkness,
intensified darkness, indistinguishable darkness.
All this visible world was reduced to its primordial state.
This primordial world which was enveloped by the all pervading power of that One, came to be, born from the force of His great heat.[3]

Desire entered the One in the beginning,
It was the earliest seed, the product of thought.
Those (Sages) who can see beyond by putting their mind and heart together
Found the binding link of the existent in the non existent.
The non-existent existing in the existent[4]

Their ray extended light across the darkness;
But was the One below or was it above?
Creative force and fertile power was there;
Below was energy and will, above. [5]

Who knows for certain? Who shall declare it here?
When was it born and when came the creation?
The divine powers (Devas) were born
much later after Creation came into being
Who then knows whence it came about?[6]

None knows when creation has arisen;
Whether He made it or did not make it,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
Only He knows, or maybe even He knows not! [7]

I've been reading different translations online and they all have somewhat different translations. It's interesting to see which words are different and how the sentences are reformulated. It actually helps to get a clearer idea of what is being said.
Nevertheless, not much is gleamed from the poem itself. It basically says that in the beginning there is only God who produced thought which lead to desire which lead to creation of the Golden One/Nature/fertile power etc. I wish there was more information! I find that I often have to read several sources to get a decent understanding of anything in Hinduism.. .sigh*
 

Metempsychosis

Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
I think in the beginning there was no mind.Hence the question of personal or impersonal god does not arise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Metempsychosis

Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
Was there ever a beginning?

Sorry.No,because time is a concept of mind.Advaita vedanta usually takes the following viewpoint.
The materiality of the creation is like the castle in the air, an illusory projection of one's own mind — imaginary.The Creator is the mind: mind or pure intelligence is his body. Thought is inherent in the mind.The object of perception is inherent in the perceiver.External objects like space, etc- and psychological factors like 'I' etc, exist only in name.In reality only one the cosmic consciousness (cit) exists. In this it is the mind that conjures up the diversity, diverse actions and experiences, the notion of bondage and the desire for liberation.This entire universe is forever non-different from the consciousness that dwells in every atom, even as an ornament is non-different from gold. Just as an ornament potentially exists in gold, the object exists in the subject.


Even as the dream-objects are experienced only by the dreamer, the objects of perception are experienced by the perceiver. Just as from a seed the sprout arises in due time, this potentiality becomes 'manifest' as the notion of creation.

The infinite (space of) consciousness is even purer than infinite space: and the world is even as that infinite is.But one who has not tasted capsicum does not know its taste; even so. one does not experience consciousness in the infinite in the absence of objectivity. Hence, even this consciousness appears to be inert or insentient. and the world is experienced as such too. Even as in tangible ocean tangible waves are seen, in the formless Brahman the world also exists without form. From the Infinite the Infinite emerges and exist In It as the Infinite; hence the world has never really been created — It Is the same as that from which It emerges.The five clements are the seed of which the world is the tree; and the eternal consciousness Is the seed for the elements. As is the seed, so is the fruit (tree).Therefore, the world Is nothing but Brahman the absolute.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope that this makes sense.

Thanks for replying. I am glad you understood my questions.

So, Personal and impersonal both are eternal. Hmm..then it means that even after “MAHA-PRALAYA” or great dissolution, they both will still exist. I believed that all the creation gets absorbed back into GOD(?), all the lokas, all the planets, all universe, individual ATMANs etc. There is no more Vaikuntha Loka, no more Swarg Lok, no Brahma Loka, no Kailasha, and no Go Loka after the great dissolution. There is only pure consciousness left. (impersonal aspect). So, is it right to say that the personal form is eternal as well?

My perspective has been that GOD is both personal and impersonal. Both manifest and unmanifest. Unmanifest or the impersonal form cannot be worshipped since there is no Bhakti, thus it can only be meditated upon. Whereas the personal form, can be worshipped as well as meditated upon. The impersonal form is the eternal form and the personal forms are just manifestation of that impersonal form, the pure consciousness. According to the Puranas, it is the personal forms (impersonal manifestation) that did the creation, whereas in the Vedas I think there are no personal forms but just names (metaphorically).
 

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friend dharmaseeker,

Thank you for that verse from Rig Veda. It has similarities with the *Tao Te Ching*
To personal understanding From *nothingness* appeared forms and no-forms due to the original *thought*
Desire entered the One in the beginning,
It was the earliest seed, the product of thought.

The forms that one sees is *maya* and one has to and understand and detach the self from MAYA.

Love & rgds
 

Metempsychosis

Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
very enlightening. But then what is the world aronud us that we perceive?? Where did it originate from or Is it a illusion?

I will give quotes from advaita scriptures.You can find your answers based on them.
First: A state of perfect equilibrium.

Then: When the infinite vibrates, the worlds appear to emerge.

Then:

This universe is in fact the eternal effulgent infinite consciousness which generates within itself the knowable (which would be known as that which is to be) with an idea concerning its form (which is space), and with an enquiry concerning itself. Thus space is brought into being. When, after a considerable time the consciousness of creation becomes strong in the infinite being, the future jiva. . .arises within it: and the infinite abandons, as it were, its supreme state, to limit itself as the jiva. However, even then the Brahman remains the infinite and there is no real transformation into any of these.

Jiva and the mind, etc. are all vibrations in consciousness. The jiva thought *l am atomic in nature and stature* and so it became atomic in nature. Yet, it only apparently became so. on account of its imagination which was false. Even as one may dream that he is dead and that he has another body.this jiva which in truth had an extremely subtle body of pure consciousness, now begins to identify itself with grossness and so becomes gross. Even as a mountain is reflected in a mirror and is seen as if it were in the mirror the jiva reflects the external objects and activities, and soon begins to think that they arc all within itself and that he is the doer of the actions and the experiencer of experiences. When the jiva wishes to see. eyes are formed in the gross body- liven so the skin (tactile sense), ears, tongue, nose and the organs of action are formed as a result of the appropriate desire arising in the jiva. Thus in the body abides the jiva which has the extremely subtle body of consciousness, imagining various external physical experiences and various internal psychological experiences. Thus resting in the unreal which however appears to be real Brahman, now appearing to be jiva,becomes confused.This same Brahman which has come to regard itself as a finite jiva and endowed with a physical body, apprehends the external world which on account of the veil of ignorance appears to be composed of matter. Someone thinks he is Brahma. someone else thinks he is something else — in this manner the jiva imagines it is this or that, and so binds itself to the illusion of world-appearance.

Rama, there is neither one jiva nor many nor a conglomerate of jiva. Jiva is only a name! What exists is only Brahman It is full of non-consciousness and(objectless) consciousness, It can only be indicated by negation (not this, not this). He became that which Is beyond description.That state is the void. Brahman, consciousness, the Purusa of (he Samkhya) Isvara of the yogi.Siva,time,Atman or self, non-self and the middle etc. of the mystics holding different views.

Because he is omnipotent, his thought forms materialise. One alone appears as diverse on account of ignorance; we do not experience this ignorance which disappears on enquiry even as darkness vanishes when light is brought in to look at it. Brahman alone is the cosmic (Mahajiva) soul and the millions of jiva . There is naught else.But all this is mere imagination or thought. Even now nothing has ever been created; the pure infinite space alone exists. Brahma the creator could not create the world as it was before the cosmic dissolution, for Brahma attained final liberation then. Cosmic consciousness alone exists now and ever; in it are no worlds no created beings. That consciousness reflected in itself appears to be creation.

Even as an unreal nightmare produces real results, this world seems to give rise to a sense of reality in a state of ignorance. When true wisdom arises, this unreality vanishes.

Just as both sleep and dream are aspects of one sleep, even so this creation and dissolution of the universe are two aspects of the one indivisible, infinite consciousness.

Copyrights: Yoga Vasistha.


Note: First,now are labels here.

Thank you for that verse from Rig Veda. It has similarities with the *Tao Te Ching*

The legend has it that, Siddha Bhoganāthar of the Shaiva Siddhanta tradition in southern part of India changed bodies through yoga techniques to become the famous Lao-Tzu.:)
Siddha Bhoganathar: An Oceanic Life Story
Siddha Bhoganathar is also know as Bo-Yang and also known as Lao-Tzu in China- the founder of Taoism (5th century B.C.) was the first Chinese to propound the theory of duality of matter the male Yang and female Yin - which conforms to the Siddha concept of Shiva(Matter) Shakti(Energy) or positive-negative forces. He visited many countries astrally, and physically and through transmigration. His visit to South America has been confirmed by accounts left by the Muycas of Chile: Bocha, who gave laws to Muycas, was a white, bearded man, wearing long robes, who regulated the calendar, established festivals, and vanished in time like others, (other remarkable teachers who had come across the Pacific according to numerous legends of Incas, Aztecs and Mayans).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Friend dharmaseeker,

Thank you for that verse from Rig Veda. It has similarities with the *Tao Te Ching*
To personal understanding From *nothingness* appeared forms and no-forms due to the original *thought*


The forms that one sees is *maya* and one has to and understand and detach the self from MAYA.

Love & rgds

What do we call that "nothingness" in Hinduism?
 
Top